Re: [PATCH] capabilities, take 3 (Re: [PATCH] capabilites, take 2)

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:40:42 PDT, Chris Wright said:

> OK, this is precisely POSIX as I expected.  No surprise given the folks
> involved.

Hmm... Chris? Andy?  *Exactly* what version of the draft are you both looking at?

I ask because Andy Lutomirski's draft had *different* production rules:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=106687456724871&w=2

And I think everybody managed to miss this gotcha (I know I did):

Albert Calahan reported that apparently a lot of people worked off the N-1 version
of the draft, and the equation that's giving us the trouble got changed:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=106687419224640&w=2

I wonder if Andy and I were convinced that the Posix draft 16 that people
worked from was broken because it was, but the Posix draft 17 (that looks
like the SGI stuff) was more correct but didn't get seen by everybody?

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature